Bottom line on the topless bill

By By Dennis Riddell

Published: Monday, March 4, 2013 at 03:56 PM.

HB34 “An Act to Clarify the Offense of Indecent Exposure” stems from the frustration of a local government trying to maintain a minimum level of public decency in their city. In an open letter last summer to citizens and visitors, those leaders wrote:

“As many of you are aware, an event known as “Go Topless” is scheduled to occur in downtown Asheville this Sunday. … a number of female attendees may be topless, exposing their breasts to public view. As citizens of Asheville and individual members of Asheville City Council, we do not endorse this conduct. We believe that it does nothing to help our community, and we recognize that it disappoints and embarrasses many of our citizens and visitors. We wish it were not happening.

Despite our hopes over the past few months that this could be addressed by city ordinance, legal research indicates that this is a matter of state law … we fully intend to seek legislation that will clarify the law and enable Asheville and other communities in North Carolina to respond more effectively. Please join us in urging our legislators in that direction.”

HB34 came about at the request of local officials and constituents seeking clarification to existing law. Wording of the bill is taken from the most recent N.C. Supreme Court decision on this matter (State v. Fly 1998). HB34 changes no law, amends no law, and creates no new or different penalties. With one minor change made by the state Supreme Court, the law is today what it has been for years and when this bill passes, it will be no different.

In the 1970s a state Appeals Court decision narrowed the definition of ‘private parts’ to exclude the female breast. However, soon after that decision the state Legislature (Democrat majority) quickly changed the law to include the female breast. Later they made an exception for breastfeeding. HB34 contains a similar exception.

That has been the law since the ‘70s. In 1998 the court upheld the exception for breastfeeding and what had been the law up to that time. HB34 takes the court’s definition, which is current law, and puts it into statute for all to clearly see. This is simply “an act to clarify the offense of indecent exposure.”

Prosecution of this law is within the purview of local authorities who will decide how to handle violators. The existing penalties for the offense are not addressed by this bill. HB34 creates no new law — it just clarifies existing law. The point of the bill is not aimed indiscriminately at women’s breasts, it is designed to give local government the means they are requesting to address their own emerging local issues.

HB34 “An Act to Clarify the Offense of Indecent Exposure” stems from the frustration of a local government trying to maintain a minimum level of public decency in their city. In an open letter last summer to citizens and visitors, those leaders wrote:

“As many of you are aware, an event known as “Go Topless” is scheduled to occur in downtown Asheville this Sunday. … a number of female attendees may be topless, exposing their breasts to public view. As citizens of Asheville and individual members of Asheville City Council, we do not endorse this conduct. We believe that it does nothing to help our community, and we recognize that it disappoints and embarrasses many of our citizens and visitors. We wish it were not happening.

Despite our hopes over the past few months that this could be addressed by city ordinance, legal research indicates that this is a matter of state law … we fully intend to seek legislation that will clarify the law and enable Asheville and other communities in North Carolina to respond more effectively. Please join us in urging our legislators in that direction.”

HB34 came about at the request of local officials and constituents seeking clarification to existing law. Wording of the bill is taken from the most recent N.C. Supreme Court decision on this matter (State v. Fly 1998). HB34 changes no law, amends no law, and creates no new or different penalties. With one minor change made by the state Supreme Court, the law is today what it has been for years and when this bill passes, it will be no different.

In the 1970s a state Appeals Court decision narrowed the definition of ‘private parts’ to exclude the female breast. However, soon after that decision the state Legislature (Democrat majority) quickly changed the law to include the female breast. Later they made an exception for breastfeeding. HB34 contains a similar exception.

That has been the law since the ‘70s. In 1998 the court upheld the exception for breastfeeding and what had been the law up to that time. HB34 takes the court’s definition, which is current law, and puts it into statute for all to clearly see. This is simply “an act to clarify the offense of indecent exposure.”

Prosecution of this law is within the purview of local authorities who will decide how to handle violators. The existing penalties for the offense are not addressed by this bill. HB34 creates no new law — it just clarifies existing law. The point of the bill is not aimed indiscriminately at women’s breasts, it is designed to give local government the means they are requesting to address their own emerging local issues.

Simply requiring women out and about in public, in the presence of children and adolescents, to ‘keep your shirt on’ so to speak should be a minimum of acceptable behavior. I think the bill is a reasonable response to a local request for help in addressing the lack of self-control of a few people. I think it is silly that we should even have to remind adults to cover themselves when in public. We sensibly require merchants that sell certain magazines that display the female breast to be covered to protect minors. If a minor cannot see a topless female on a magazine cover it makes no sense that the same minor should not be protected from seeing the same thing in the public square.

This session of the General Assembly is only four weeks old but we have addressed many serious issues. We have tackled the prickly issue of unemployment insurance reform, we have said “no” to the issue of state health care exchanges, we have passed education reform with more to follow. Currently bills are working through various committees that deal with jobs, protecting the Second Amendment, tax reform, budget reform, local control of education, workmen’s comp ,health care, ID issues, election law, right-sizing government and a host of other matters. We are dealing with the substantive issues we campaigned on.

Though I did not come to Raleigh with this particular issue in mind, I am willing to help localities asking the NCGA to clarify existing law regarding community standards of decency.

I intend to vote for the bill.

Dennis Riddell of Snow Camp is the District 64 Republican representative in the N.C. House. This was written in response to a Times-News editorial on the subject.